Posts by Shawn10538

11

Are Jehovah's Witnesses a cult?

by Shawn10538 in

jw
friends

a. this is statement a. only one statement or sentence here.

b. statement b. one sentence... .

i. cult.

Shawn10538

I was hoping for some input by Eduardo or any other doubters out there that believe that JWs are not a cult, but I guess there aren't that many of you. So I am going to try to play Devil's advocate to get some counter points going. III. JWs are not a cult at all because every individual in the church has the explicit right to think and believe anything they want, do anything they want and stay or leave anytime they want without any negative consequences coming from the church or its members - no backlash in other words. That's a start for the con side. Also unless I hear different I am going to list all statements under "I" in the above post, (the first one) as Agreement 1. So here we go: Agreement 1 = All statements under "I" listed in the above post. This means out of all the members of this Forum, not a single person disputes any of the facts listed under "I," their wording, their meaning, their application, relevance and truth. Going... going... Gone! So, we all agree with the statements under "I." To be continued... Shawn

11

Are Jehovah's Witnesses a cult?

by Shawn10538 in

jw
friends

a. this is statement a. only one statement or sentence here.

b. statement b. one sentence... .

i. cult.

Shawn10538

I was hoping for some input by Eduardo or any other doubters out there that believe that JWs are not a cult, but I guess there aren't that many of you. So I am going to try to play Devil's advocate to get some counter points going.

III. JWs are not a cult at all because every individual in the church has the explicit right to think and believe anything they want, do anything they want and stay or leave anytime they want without any negative consequences coming from the church or its members - no backlash in other words.

That's a start for the con side.

Also unless I hear different I am going to list all statements under "I" in the above post, (the first one) as Agreement 1.

So here we go:

Agreement 1 = All statements under "I" listed in the above post. This means out of all the members of this Forum, not a single person disputes any of the facts listed under "I," their wording, their meaning, their application, relevance and truth. Going... going... Gone!

So, we all agree with the statements under "I."

To be continued...

Shawn

11

Are Jehovah's Witnesses a cult?

by Shawn10538 in

jw
friends

a. this is statement a. only one statement or sentence here.

b. statement b. one sentence... .

i. cult.

Shawn10538

So if someone wants to merge the new points into the format that would be cool. If not I'll get to it later.

The next point should start of with III. and then procede from there. Or if anyone, I was hoping Eduardo, wants to challenge the claims made so far, feel free.

Again, the next NEW CLAIM should be "III." That's roman numeral 3, or iii.
Shawn

11

Are Jehovah's Witnesses a cult?

by Shawn10538 in

jw
friends

a. this is statement a. only one statement or sentence here.

b. statement b. one sentence... .

i. cult.

Shawn10538

Hi,
I am starting up a new post on this issue because this is the subject that arose from another ubrelated thread, and doesn't really match with the other title. I'm sure that this has been debated thoroughly on this site before, but I have a feeling that this will still attract plenty more comments from many others. If anyone wants to see where and how this issue came up from one of my posts, look under the thred entitled, "Has the WTS ever sued a brother?" or something to that effect.

I just got done reading Eduardo Esquires's (as he likes to be called, you know he has quite a bit of monetary advantage in referring to himself and labeling himself with Esq. I'm just using his own logic as he used it on his site, which I'm sure he'll provide a link to, if not I'll do it next time. His logic is that all cult exit counselors label groups as cults because it lines their pockets with money to do so. The more groups they label as a cult, the more clients they get. I'll paste the section I derive this brilliant piece of deduction from his site, again, later.)

I'd like to propose using a specific format for this discussion so we don't all get lost. Label each and every one of your arguments in note taking format. No single note should be more than on sentence long.

For example, we're going to start with:

I. This is statement I.
A. This is statement A. Only one statement or sentence here.
B. Statement B. One sentence...
1. Statement B1.
a. Statement B1a.
aa. Statement
b...
bb...
bbb...

Got it?

This will enable us to be progressive and forward moving on the subject without backtracking and rehashing. Also, when we come to an agreement on something, let's list it chronologically like this:

Agreement 1.
Agreement 2.

We can abreviate the agreements like this if you want:
Ag. 1.
Ag. 2.

If we can build a really comprehensive argument on the subject, maybe we can submit it to Wikipedia, that might be cool.

It would definitely be advantageous to go to the original thread that I mentioned before to get some history.

It really doesn't matter which part of the argument we start on because I'm sure we'll get all over the place at one time or another.

So I'm going to officially start off the argument right now using a rough quote from Eduardo' site, which I recommend you all read before jumping in. Actually let's get a definition going first. Here it goes:

I will start off showing how JWS meet the criteria of a cult according to this specific dictonaries definition, incorporating their stance on blood as evidence of extreme behavior.

I. CULT. from the American Heritage Dictionary: 1. A system of religious worship or ritual. 2. A religion or sect considered extremist or false. 3a. Obsessive devotion to a person or principle. 3b. The object of such devotion.
A. JWs are a cult according to definition 1. above.
1. JWs are a cult according to definition 2, above.
a. JWs are a cult according to definition 3a above only if the individual in question is obsessive about their leaders or principles, therefore one must judge on a case by case basis.
aa. The WTS itself is a cult if its members behave like definition 3a above toward it.
aaa. Since members do seem to behave in an extreme, obsessive manner towards the WTS (allowing their children to die, because of their refusing blood transfusions for the child, JUST BECAUSE THEIR LEADERS SAY that to accept a transfusion would not be abstaining from blood in the manner that Acts 15 was meant to be understood ACCORDING TO THEM) this seems to suggest a cult dynamic in the works.
2. "aaa" is true about the members' devotion being obsessive and extrreme, because: the WTS interpretation of Acts 15 is exclusive to WTS, and them alone, making such an interpretation on the fringes (the extremities, if you will) and unheard of by billions of Bible readers and every known Bible scholar outside of the JW church, making the reason why JWs interpret Acts 15 just that way seem to be a mindless following of their leaders' interpretation, and not an individual choice based on their own rational abilities.
2x. (This is not to say that JWs are not correct about their interpretation of Acts 15 just because they are alone in it. But this does show that their interpretation would be placed in the category of "on the fringes or extremities.")
a. When an interpretation of any text is so contrary to the understanding of every single other person on earth outside the group, and members are agreeing with such a rare interpretation of scripture not for academic or rational reasons but simply because they are told so by their leaders, and are in fear of doing otherwise since the threat of disfellowshipping keeps them from speaking out about their rational objections, this is extreme and obsessive behavior, making WTS a cult according to definition 3b. above.

b. Since the WTS interpretation and policy on blood seem so extreme, wild, baseless and lacking in knowledge of the context of the scripture, (or else the whole world besides JWs are too dumb to understand a very simple scripture) this tends to further support the idea that JWs are extremists not only in the way they follow their leaders, but their beliefs and interpretations themselves are far to the extremities or fringes of how regular people interpret simple sentences using basic words, or simple metaphors clearly not meant to be taken to the extreme or literally in every situation.
bb. The fact that to literally abstain from blood, one would have to stay several feet away from another person's blood, since to abstain means "to stay away from or avoid" when taken literally suggests that the simple scripture was not to be taken literally in every case.
bbb. At what point a person has stepped too close to a drop of blood or a piece of unholy meat is definitely up for debate, but to actually touch a drop of blood with one's finger would be a clear violation of the scripture the way JWs interpret it since you wouldn't be abstaining or staying away from the blood would you?
bbbb. Also, one must note that it is impossible to touch anything, especially a liquid with out there being a fluid exchange on some minute molecular level. Whatever you touch, you ingest. A physical and biological fact.
bbbbb. So touching blood should be just as sinful to a Witness as eating meat (all meat has blood in it, impossible to remove it all) and transfusing blood directly.
3. If "aaa" through "2bbbbb" are correct and reasonable conclusions, then this would mean that indeed JWs do act obsessively, in an extreme way towards the WTS, making the WTS, according to definition 3b. a cult.

II. It is a well established fact that cult exit counselors like to label as many groups as possible a "cult" because it clearly allows them to make more money when they do this known and admitted practice.
A. There is no actual evidence that the process or practice described in "I." actually exists.
1. "I" seems to be a wild accusation, or an imaginary situation that exists only in the minds of certain people.
a. The imaginary situation is a convenient belief for a member of a cult to have, since it seems logical that such a belief would lesson the negative feelings a cult member would have if he feels that he may actuaaly be in a cult.

Thanks for participating.

Eduardo when can we meet in person?

Call me

Shawn

61

Should you believe in the Trinity?

by 1ofhissheep in

hey, i am new to this site and looking into the jw faith and watchtower.

i have currently been studying what was written in the "should you believe in the trinity?

" publication found at watchtower.org .

Shawn10538

Does anybody even need to read the Bible (or the book of Middle eastern mythology being a more acurate title) to know that the idea of the Trinity is ridiculous? Put down your Bibles people! It's myth! Trinity myths appear thousands of years befor Christ. It is an archetype!

Why are you trying so hard to describe the nature or form of God? We are all way too puny to comprehend if there is a God. And if there is one, he has not revealed himself to mankind in an obvious, non- discriminatory way that all humans can have access too. In other words:
1. Either there is no God or
2. God has some reason for letting bickering and debate go on for centuries about whether he is two feet tall or three feet tall or has green eyes or has hazel eyes.

One thing for sure is, as a race, collectively, humans have no actual first hand knowledfg of God or anything about him or her or it or them. Zippo.
Coming up with a mathematically impossible problem to describe him must be, if you want anyone to take you seriously, just a way of saying, we don't know what the hell we are talking about when we talk about God. But, as far as believing in a literal Trinity, you must have yourself committed if you believe int it. Only an incredible amount of self manipulation could make someone feel comfortable with such a ridiculous notion.

When someone actually meets and talks with God, and I mean, in such a way that other people in the room saw him too, give me a call. I'll come with cameras and video. But if you don't have that kind of proof, then you are just speculating and talking story, aren't you?

Santa Claus is real. Prove that he is not!

Shawn

37

WTS NO HIGHER EDUCATION dumb dub

by DannyHaszard in

high cierra: teen scores best-ever ib mark at bhs

royal gazette, bermuda - 4 hours ago .

... cierra, a jehovahs witness who was named the islands outstanding teen 2006 earlier this year, does not intend to go to university but will instead carry ...

Shawn10538

yup, it's pretty obvious that self manipulation, a phrase I put in almost all of my posts here, is taking place in any Witness or other cult member who also has hyper vigilence in academic areas. I say hyper vigilance because it isn't really a matter of intelligence is it? When I look at that girl's picture, and believe me I have spent some time looking at it! I see someone whose desperation to please her parents, peers and congregation has led her to become the over acheiver she is today. I think some level of self manipulation, or letting your rational mind check out for a while takes place in nearly every person of faith, even in mainstream religions. I mean, come on, the sun stood still on two occasions in the Bible? Right! Again, Santa Claus is a more believaBLE CHARACTER THAN MANY BIBLE story characters, Jesus included, as far as I am concerned.

My point here is that, this girl's burn-out clock has started ticking, and it's only a matter of time, 1, 5, 10, 15 years? before she just breaks down, leaves the religion and gets back on track with some real goals and endeavors. Maybe before that time she'll meet a guy, and like so many women do, throw away everything for that loser, that is scenario 2. Maybe it'll be me. My flight to Bermuda is already booked! See ya all there suckers!

Shawn

59

To what belief system do you subscribe? Belief-O-Matic!

by daystar in

jw
friends

take the old belief-o-matic survey and post your results!.

here are my rather interesting results:.

1. unitarian universalism (100%) 2. mainline to liberal christian protestants (83%) 3. liberal quakers (82%) 4. neo-pagan (81%) 5. christian science (church of christ, scientist) (80%) 6. secular humanism (78%) 7. new age (67%) 8. baha'i faith (61%) 9. nontheist (60%) 10. church of jesus christ of latter-day saints (mormons) (57%) 11. new thought (55%) 12. hinduism (52%) 13. scientology (50%) 14. jehovah's witness (48%) 15. taoism (48%) 16. theravada buddhism (45%) 17. mainline to conservative christian/protestant (36%) 18. sikhism (32%) 19. mahayana buddhism (31%) 20. jainism (23%) 21. orthodox quaker (21%) 22. eastern orthodox (20%) 23. orthodox judaism (20%) 24. roman catholic (20%) 25. reform judaism (18%) 26. seventh day adventist (17%) 27. islam (5%)

Shawn10538

1. Secular Humanism (100%) 2. Unitarian Universalism (98%) 3. Liberal Quakers (92%) 4. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (85%) 5. Neo-Pagan (77%) 6. Theravada Buddhism (76%) 7. Nontheist (70%) 8. Taoism (62%) 9. New Age (60%) 10. Bahá'í Faith (54%) 11. Orthodox Quaker (50%) 12. Reform Judaism (50%) 13. Mahayana Buddhism (48%) 14. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (45%) 15. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (41%) 16. New Thought (36%) 17. Sikhism (33%) 18. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (32%) 19. Scientology (32%) 20. Jainism (31%) 21. Jehovah's Witness (29%) 22. Seventh Day Adventist (22%) 23. Hinduism (16%) 24. Eastern Orthodox (13%) 25. Islam (13%) 26. Orthodox Judaism (13%) 27. Roman Catholic (13%) I'm surprised that mainline christian came up before Buddhism, since Buddhism is the closest to Atheism of any religion, some even claim to be Atheists and Buddhists at the same time. I would definitely convert to any non-christian relgion long before any Christian one no matter how liberal it may be. Shawn

29

Couple of JW Sisters came to my door - mini rumble

by Qcmbr in

first of all want to thank you all for informing me of the good the bad and smurfly about jws - i was so stoked when these two sister's knocked on my door.

i apologise now - i was a smug git - in fairness they conducted themselves impeccably in the face of me.

this is how it went (paraphrased to highlight 'clever' bits i said and downplay swathes of conversation when i said silly things.

Shawn10538

What about all the false prophcies of the Mormons, like "All Native Americans will be converted one day." I suppose LDS did their part in converting them by slaughtering so many of them, maybe they converted in the after life? But, from what I see, the diverse Native Americans are having a renaissance of their tribal religions which are non-Christian. Never met a single LDS Native American, though I'm sure there are some. Also, why are Mormons so pumped up patriotic and willing to kill fellow Mormons in other countries should war break out. This well established fact kind of puts the Mormon allegiance in the political realm, not the spiritual realm...

Have you gone to the mirror yet?

No, I'm not joling around or trying to be funny. None of this stuff is really funny (though I may be laughing) when it comes to lying and deceiving millions of people...

Sincerely,
Shawn

25

Has the WTS ever sued a "brother" or any baptised Witness?

by Shawn10538 in

jw
friends

hopefully someone has some information on this.

i think it is an important question because from recent observation on another jw website, it has come up that some jw bethelites are suing the wts in workers comp cases after getting injured while at bethel.

this is big news to me since i have a similar case outstanding right now.

Shawn10538

To O21,
I am guessing that you are a lawyer since you sign off with Esq. every time? Just why exactly do you like to sign off that way? Do you think it gives your actual arguments more credibility? Hmmm.

Anyway, I haven't cruised this site in quite a while so I am just now seeing your challenge. First off, you should read "Releasing the Bonds" by Steven Hassan before going much further into this debate. Also, why was JWs listed as a resource in the back of Hassan's book if they are not considered to be a cult by him? The reason why JWs were not listed in the "Combatting Cult Mind Control" text, according to private conversation I've had with Mr. Hassan himself when I was seeking services from him, and as has been verified by his secretary and Randall Watters, who has written an excellent analysis of exactly why JWs are a cult as far as mental health professionals are concerned by the way, is; when Mr. Hassan was writing his first book he was simply unaware of any of the details of the JW religion that classified them as a cult. It was not until he investigated the matter further, just after completeing his book, out of necessity due to so many ex- or exiting Witnesses coming to him for therapy that he came to the conclusion that JWs indeed fit the criteria of a cult. His meeting and working with Randall Watters also enlightened him about just how destructive this group is.

Before getting into what sociologists believe or do not believe, let's get a working definition of cult going so we can have a point to springboard off of. I think starting with a definition of the WORD cult is a good place to start, long before we get into applying the meaning of the word to professional practice.

CULT, according to the American heritage dictionary means: 1. a system of religious worship or ritual.
2. A religion or sect considered extremist or false. 3.a.Obsessive devotion to a person or principal, b. The object of such devotion.

I looked up cult in several dictionaries and the definitions are extremely varied and diverse. So, argument can be had on the definition I've chosen to quote for sure, but I chose the one that was focused out the most, generic and general.

Another dictionary, Websters New World definition has so many specific qualifiers like (must have a single leader, not a body or more than one leader) and is usually quarantined in some kind of colony or compound like Bethel.) Since almost all cults have a leader but yet SAY for the record that Jesus is their ultimate leader (and not Rev. Moon, Marshall Applewhite, Davis Koresh, L. Ron Hubbard) this ultra specific and narrow definition of cult would make the word useless and meaningless for the purpose of conducting a mental health practice, or for scientific inquiry, since it allows a loophole so large that any group can wiggle out of it. Also, Websters says that the group must be religious in nature, yet there are many non-religious cults. I find Webster's definition to be unworkable and not helpful in any real investigative discussion on the subject of cults. That definition tends to shut down inquiry into the subject while a broader defoinition allows for different fields to adopt their own model of what a cult is, for use for their purposes.

So as you can see, we all have to decide before we begin talking: are we having a conversation about sociology, religion or mental health?
I know how Biola University defines their cult model, and you are right; they consider almost any religion that strays from their so-called mainstream Christianity to be a cult. So, the Christian apologist view nails JWs as a cult, and according to their extremely broad brush, JWs are indeed a cult WITHIN THAT MODEL. I refer to the book "Kingdom of the Cults" written by Walter Martin, 1997 edition. I think we both can agree that his book is just an apology for his own beliefs, and conveniently enough, those of Biola University and that in general, literature that comes out of the Biola University school of thought is all but useless as an objective commentary. I speak of only their commentaries when I say this by the way; I am not saying that Biola can't be used as a resource. I'm just saying that, we all can pretty much guess the conclusions that they are going to reach on any matter before even reading their commentaries, because all of their inquiries end up right with the assumptions that they began with, namely, that they are right and everybody else is wrong and therefore a cult. You won't see progressive enlightenment in any religious apologies, including WTS.

APOLOGIST VS> CULT DYNAMIC
The difference between WTS and Biola is that WTS is a moment to moment apologist, and the shelf life of their truth is only as long as the next time they write on the subject. This may seem to make them progressively enlightened, but only if you define it as "changing beliefs on a need to change basis." Furthermore, any so called enlightened changes take place UP AT THE TOP BY MEMBERS OF THE GB only, according to them. (R+F members therefore can not be enlightened as individual seekers of truth.) We see changes alright, as they put it, the light getting brighter, doctrine changing or flip flopping (sometimes it is more like a light turning on and off and on and off to apply the illustration more accurately to what we know their doctrinal history reveals) but, historically we know that many of the changes WTS has made were not prompted by new information or by Holy Spirit but by law suits, new laws from the government, new tax laws that affect how much money they will be able to make (the bottom line so to speak) having a prophecy's date pass by going unfulfilled, the need to reign in dissenting voices and losing lots of members because of certain issues. This is simply a matter of hind sight and good business sense. No need to label these things as enlightenment or spirit directed. What makes WTS apologists AND cult-like, according to Charles Kimball in his book, "When Religion Becomes Evil" is their claims of absolute truth and their exclusive right of access to it, but ONLY AT THE TOP conveniently enough for them.

In other words, they are always right, RIGHT NOW, even if right now conflicts with yesterday. Truth is what they are saying is truth now, and from moment to moment. This keeps their followrs in a state of suspended anticipoation of whatever the next thing is to come out of their mouth, because for all intents and purposes, it may as well be coming out of the mouth of God himself, since whatever comes out, no matter how silly and non-sensical, each member knows ahead of time that they are already going to accept whatever new light is shed forth. This is where Orwell's 1984 is most applicable. 'We're at war with East Asia, we've always been at war with east Asia, Euro-Asia is our friend.... We're at war with Euro-Asia, we've always been at war with Euro-Asia. East Asia is our friend....' R+F members are never remionded of what they were taught yesterday. Yesterday is forgotten as quickly as it came and went. It doesn't matter how or why the change was made, just that it was made by the FDS, and they are right, RIGHT NOW, even if tommorrow they have to change it back to the original way (which as you know has happened scores of times in WT history, if you are one who has been so bold to actually delve into WT history that you are encouraged to ignore, play down and just forget.) This is how we come to find that the reality of the situation amongst JWs is that they are the most ignorant of their own heritage. Anyone who wants to can be far better versed on the history of JWs than JWs themselves because outsiders have access to all sources of knowledge about JW history. Let me clear that up a bit. Non-Witnesses have access to the whole story of JWs, whereas, most JWs have only the Proclaimers book, which is nothing more than an exercise of self-worshipping masturbation on the part of the GB. It is probably the single most grossly apologetic and anti-critical analysis that has ever been written by anyone about anyone. It's pages are still wet and sticky even, if you can follow the analogy...

There is no critical process going on in the WTS model, as far as individual members are concerned. In fact, members, as I know from being one for 30 yrars, are encouraged to stuff, stomp , pack, smack, and pummel all thoughts and alarms that go off in one's head (God given logic and rational thinking by the way and God given senses) if they disagree with the WTS. If such thoughts persist, as you know, they are encouraged to seek HELP? from the elders who will tell a person how wrong they are and to just ignore one's own natural God given processes of rational sense in favor of some man made entity. This is at the heart of what makes a group a cult. It is called "Doctrine over person" and is a socially and psychologically destructive dynamic.

Another funny thing about WTS is that the opposite of their current stance may have been held as true yesterday, yet in my 6 years at Bethel and 10 years of full time service I have NEVER heard a JW actually SAY, "We were wrong then" in precisely those terms. This is evidence that some serious self manipulation is going on, and is a blatant response to cognitive dissonance. What they will say is, in full blown rhetoric of denial, yesterday, it was true yesterday. It was present truth yesterday. Today, it is considered not false or a lie, but past truth. "Keep in step with present truth" as the song I know you know goes. These types of mental acrobatics that believers must be well practiced at and use up much mental energy performing is one of the aspects of a cult in several cult models. When it comes to saying. "Hey, if the past is any indicator, we're probably wrong about about a whole host of things RIGHT THIS MOMENT!" Well, as sensible a thing as that is to say for most humble, rational and cognitively viable people, I still have yet to hear it from a JW, in my 30 years in this org. So, WTS is an apologist of a particularly insidious type.

What I know so far is, as far as sociologists are concerned, their aim is not to judge, as I mentioned. They are typically not interested in whether a group is "healthy or safe" to get involved with. If you want to know what some of the most famous sociologists have to say on the matter of cults, start with the book, "When Prophecy Fails" by Leon Festinger. This book does mention JWs and the Millerites separately.

[A little history on the Millerites that the WTS hides from you: Millerites of course were literally one and the same people as JWs. They started up just 20 to 30 years before C.T. Russel. Most Millerites followed George Storrs over after their prophecy of 1844 and 1845 failed, him being among the most prominent Millerites next to Miller himself. Much like how the Indian/Hindu/Buddist Essenes who became Christian all at once as a group under the evangelism of Peter and Paul, (as they arrived in droves in Palestine from India in search of Chrishna) giving Paul's brand of Christianity much power and numbers in the first century, the Millerites added to the JW roster gave Russel the initial numbers to become a significant religion. If not for the Millerites joining as a group numbering several thousand, JWs might never have become a force to wreckon with. Since Millerites, proven long time false prophets, were already aware of how to deal with the cognitive dissonance of failed prophecy, they felt right at home as Russel began making new prophecies, all of which failed eventually. So to sum it up, career false prophet George Storrs brings his zealous preaching followers to CT Russell and they became a false prophecy making machine the likes of which the world has never before seen. Nobody does false prophecy with the vigor and shameless, bold-faced arrogance that JWs do. They are the kings of false prophecy, and know better how to deal with cognitive dissonance from failed prophecy better than anyone.] Now back to our program...

Personally, my purpose is usually to discover what is healthy and what is not in a group. I am a teacher, K-8 currently, and will be entering an MFT program next year. I really don't care if sociologists list JWs in the right, left or middle column. As a hopeful parent one day, I am likewise not interested in the sociological classification of a group, especially by sociologists whose aim is to never identify any group as "bad" or "good." It just isn't practically helpful for my purposes.

This doesn't mean that sociologists don't list JWs as a cult, in their definition of cult which has yet to be stated here. We know what the dictionary says about the WORD cult. Now, how do the different disciplines define cult as it is used WITHIN their perspective disciplines? We talked about Christian apologetics' definition as well. But science in general tries to stay out of the role of moral judge, in any field usually, like I said. That is part of being scientific about things and objective. All groups are equally legitimate according to sociologists, and that's OK. I'll leave it up to you to find a good definition from the perspective of a sociologist. How does that sound? Maybe in your response you can inform me on a succinct definition by and for sociologists, and please list the names of the scientists you quote and their exact field of study, and the date of the quote.

But, psychologists are equally involved in cults, and they are concerned about how the group dynamic affects the individual, where a sociologist is not interested in the individual or person necessarily. I find the sociologist stance to be not as useful to me because its concern is about groups and groups' interactions with other groups.

If you can read "When Prophesy Fails" by Festinger for a sociologists viewpoint and "Releasing the bonds" by Hassan before responding to this post that would be much better. Then I'd like to meet you in person, and we can sit down and chat over coffee. Maybe you can enlighten me on some things. Maybe I'm crazy. At least let's talk on the phone. My number is 562-225-5928. I live in Long Beach, CA. You are always welcome at my pad.

Shawn Dean

29

Couple of JW Sisters came to my door - mini rumble

by Qcmbr in

first of all want to thank you all for informing me of the good the bad and smurfly about jws - i was so stoked when these two sister's knocked on my door.

i apologise now - i was a smug git - in fairness they conducted themselves impeccably in the face of me.

this is how it went (paraphrased to highlight 'clever' bits i said and downplay swathes of conversation when i said silly things.

Shawn10538

Just in case I don't get back to this post for a while, and even though I haven't any actual verification that Qcmbr is actually a member of LDS (every bit as much a cult as JWs in my humble opinion), I do commend her for using critical thinking directed at other people, but, I challenge her to go stand in the mirror and be just as harsh and scrutinizing on her own faith as she is on JWs.

Critical thinking skills are practically useless if you can't apply them three dimensionally in every direction. If you spare yourself, or even God himself, from the heat of harsh scientific and journalistic inquiry, your skills are confined to advancing others out of the darkness, but you are not progressing and evolving yourself.

From my minimal exposure to LDS, attending the meetings a few times, reading a few books for and against and dating two members (not at the same time) I have seen the exact thought stopping, self deception and self manipulation processes being used in both churches. In some areas, I find LDS to be so absolutely ridiculous that I roll over laughing that grown people can actually believe that stuff.

ANNOUNCEMENT: To any LDS member, I have a gold plate, love potion, cure-all tonic, a bridge and property in Florida to sell you. It costs 2,000,000 dollars for one peep at the gold plate. You believe I have it don't you? DON'T YOU? Well, if there is any consistency to the LDS process of how they come to believe what they believe, I just gained 10 million followers world wide, because the whole thing is based on believing something JUST BECAUSE SOME WEIRDO POTION SELLING SHINANIGAN SAID SO! I mean, there is literally ZERO evidence in the whole universe that backs up the Smith story. ZZZZEEERRRROOOO.!!!!!!!!!

So, I'll be expecting all Mormons to show up at my door because they are literally THAT GULLIBLE! I could go on for hours on this thing. Suffice it to say that for a Mormon to look down on a JW, is the pot calling the kettle black. OOps did I say black? Coincidentally, Mormons shared their views on black people with JWs, that blacks were going to turn white some day, if I'm not mistaken, correct me if I am, but it took Mormons about 40 years longer to suddenly have a revelation that blacks could become members. Even the civil rights movement desegregated the South 15 years before Mormons accepted blacks. So, if you can be a Mormon, you have no business poking fun at JWs, Scientologists, flying saucer cults, David Koresh, Heaven's Gate and the one true religion - The Sanata Claus Cult.

Laughing OUT LOUD AT ALL MORMONS!!!
Slapping my knee uproariously at the sheer stupidity of their magic potion religion.
Wishing I had the charisma J. Smith had to convince a bunch of country hicks in New York in the 1800s (now those people had the process of scientific inquiry down! Man they were a tough sell I bet!) that he could stick his head in a bag and use magic spectacles to read an ancient Egyptian script, and when caught at his deception (being unable to repeat the revelation to his friend who was writing as he spoke) he came up with a story that God was angry and punoished them by not revealing the first reading a second time. And now we'll never know what those first readings said. (Weep.)

If you can believe that, you can believe ANYTHING!!!! Read the book of Mormon for yourself and see how absolutely comical it is. The only other books that come close to its stupidity are the Bible and the Koran. But definitely, with third or fourth grade critical thinking ability one should be able to totally dismantle the mormon faith.

Sad that 10 million adults actually buy into that mess.

Shawn